Let me ask you and anyone else- Is burning a cross on a black families lawn a "hate crime?" It has been successfuly prosecuted and people have gone to jail.

Is painting a Swastika, or writing Nazi slogans on a Temple a Hate Crime? It has been successfuly prosecuted and people have gone to jail.

The monetary value of the lawn damage, or the paint to cover the Nazi slogans, does not set the level of the crime. It is the painful emotional impact that the act caused that sets the level of the crime.

Both cross burning and swastika painting may be reasonably interpreted as threats, considering the historical baggage of those activities. There is nothing you can do to a wafer that compares to those activities, IMO.

But that's because of the big meanie scientists, according to GilGoddidit in the first comment on Dave's poke at GrannyTard.

Quote

The big problem is that the opposition won’t address the science, or allow the science to be addressed, no matter what.

Gil then posts a link to the Little Green Footballs thread where ID gets trashed, and the DI is labeled the "Dishonesty Institute".

Don't look now, Gil, but I can't imagine that even one of the commenters at LGF is a scientist, so how does that support your argument that the science of ID is not let into the discussion?

Actually, we did address the science, or lack of science, in ID when we wrote "Why Intelligent Design Fails." We went out of our way to avoid any of the obvious facts that IDC is merely a religious ploy, and focus purely on their so-called science.

That is why my chapter was used to trash some of Mike Behe's BS in the Dover trial, forcing Behe to whine that ID would work in science fiction movies.

--------------"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

Both cross burning and swastika painting may be reasonably interpreted as threats, considering the historical baggage of those activities. There is nothing you can do to a wafer that compares to those activities, IMO.

Threats are assault. There is a reason that the examples I used are prosecuted as hate crimes.

--------------"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

I'm sure that since you've apparently attended the Larry Fafarman School of Law, you can explain your contention that the host is still the property of the church after the priest gives it way.

Edited for clarity.

Well, I am not a lawyer, but I have been a criminal investigator. If someone enters a property to take something they have possiblly broken the law. Nobody commits a crime until a jury finds them guilty. That doesn't keep them from being locked up.

If you want to be the test case, I will watch your case with great interest.

--------------"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

Firstly, regardless of the rights or wrongs of PZ's comments he hasn't actually done anything or incited anyone to do anything illegal.

Secondly, comparing PZ destroying (which he has yet to do btw, he's merely talked about it) a communion wafer to a KKK cross burning or the vandalising of a synagogue with Nazi symbols is hyperbolic drivel of the highest order. Those crimes are demonstrably of a racial, not religious, nature, a fact established in every civilised country on the planet. One of the key arguments in the "offence to religion"/race debates has always been that Jewish religion (for example) can almost exclusively be identified with a specific, and narrow, set of racial groups. The rights or wrongs of this categorisation are immaterial, at least in the UK these matters have fallen under racial discrimination laws, not (despite the best efforts of this misguided government) religious hatred laws.

Thirdly, communion wafers are a commercial product, they can be bought. PZ can perfectly legitimately get his hands on some. Even if someone snuck them out of a mass they have been freely given them by the priest, a reasonable transfer of ownership can be said to have taken place. No disclaimer signed, no contract entered into. To claim that the wafer would have to be stolen in order to acheive this "desecration" is to twist the definition of "stolen" so far that my wife could have me prosecuted for theft of her saliva after a prolonged kiss should she so desire. The sacrament is freely given to people professing that faith. Should that person miraculously change their mind 2 seconds after receiving it.....well how can you prove their lack of sincerity? Even demonstrable premeditation could fall foul of the protections that religious affiliations (and the ability to change them) have under the law.

Fourthly, blasphemy is only blasphemy to a believer, PZ isn't a believer. He can whack off on wafers, burn bibles, get a lady to queef on Qu'rans, tear up Torahs, grind his genitals on Guru Granth Sahibs and shit on sections of every sacred sheet in the world. Hell, I'll even join him. So what? Will this upset some people? Sure. Will it offend some people? Sure. Will it constitute blasphemy in the eyes of some people? Sure. But rather tellingly, such acts only have the significance they are attributed under various belief systems. They are tellingly very seperate from "Get to the back of the bus nigger" or "filthy kike" or "dirty paki" or cross burnings or Holocaust denial or "No Blacks, No Irish" signs, they don't involve discrimination against persons or people on the basis of an unchangeable facet of their birth, i.e. their race.

Threatening to kill someone is a crime. Threatening to kill someone because of their race or religion is a hate crime. Threatening to crumble a cracker in a (probably) comedy fashion, even if it pisses someone off, is not a crime (should said cracker be legally obtained). If it is then I get to play the exact same cards. I get to burn chuches because they "offend" me (they don't but hey, I can claim whatever beliefs I like right?), I get to call for the murder of the Archbishop of Canterbury because his beard "offends" me (it doesn't but hey, when did reality enter into the equation). I get to beat up muslim people on the street because their presence "offends" me (it doesn't, but hey, why let a little thing like the facts get in the way of a good emotive load of shit?).

Guess what? PZ's comments (and maybe actions) WILL offend someone, it's possible that causing offence is quite deliberately intended. Causing offence=/=hate. Not even close. PZ is drawing attention to a demonstrably ludicrous idea and questioning it. He might be doing so in a way that I would not, or that I might tacticly disagree with, but what he is expressedly not doing is anything remotely resembling a hate crime.

To equate the two is to cheapen a) hate crimes and the suffering their victims have been through, and b) to miss the point of what PZ has said.

I suggest people grow up a bit. Given a choice between having my kids beaten up for the colour of their skin or having their most precious holy relic desecrated I know which I'd choose. And I know which is a hate crime and which isn't. I suggest that we stop pandering to the hysterical persecution complexes of people that are afraid to be disagreed with.

I am personally greatly offended by catching fish. According to my religion they are sacred. Based on your profile picture, you will be receiving your summons in the mail soon.

--------------To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

The taking of property "under false pretenses", as Dr. GH put it, *might* be a crime. Typically this falls under the category of "fraud", which frequently is a civil offense. Depending on where you live, the classification might depend on the value of the property thereby attained.

Dr. GH's example demonstrates that taking the host if you're not a catholic in good standing is a violation of Church law. No quibble there.

But I'll continue to take Dr. GH's claim to legal expertise with a large grain of salt in light of the following:

Quote

Threats are assault.

Not in my state. Note the repetitive use of the phrase "physical injury" and the notable lack of reference to "threat":

163.160 - Assault in the fourth degree(1) A person commits the crime of assault in the fourth degree if the person:

(d) Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes, by means other than a motor vehicle, physical injury to the operator of a public transit vehicle while the operator is in control of or operating the vehicle. As used in this paragraph, "public transit vehicle" has the meaning given that term in ORS 166.116;

(e) While being aided by another person actually present, intentionally or knowingly causes physical injury to another;

(f) While committed to a youth correction facility, intentionally or knowingly causes physical injury to another knowing the other person is a staff member of a youth correction facility while the other person is acting in the course of official duty;

(g) Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes physical injury to an emergency medical technician or paramedic, as those terms are defined in ORS 682.025, while the technician or paramedic is performing official duties;

(h) Being at least 18 years of age, intentionally or knowingly causes physical injury to a child 10 years of age or younger;

(i) Knowing the other person is a staff member, intentionally or knowingly propels any dangerous substance at the staff member while the staff member is acting in the course of official duty or as a result of the staff member's official duties; or

(j) Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes, by means other than a motor vehicle, physical injury to the operator of a taxi while the operator is in control of the taxi.63.175 - Assault in the second degree(1) A person commits the crime of assault in the second degree if the person:

163.185 - Assault in the first degree(1) A person commits the crime of assault in the first degree if the person intentionally causes serious physical injury to another by means of a deadly or dangerous weapon.

Mileage in your state might vary. And, of course, if your threat leads to a medical crisis - heart attack, etc - it may then rise to the level of assault due to the harm it has caused.

But the threat *itself* is not an assault. Not in Oregon.

One reason why crimes like burning a cross on a lawn is deemed a hate crime is precisely *because* existing law had little deterrent effect. You might have trespass (civil or criminal), you might have property damage in the form of a scorched lawn (civil or criminal), if the burning cross gets out of control and starts a larger fire you might even have arson (finally, something with teeth!). The solution: make burning of a cross on a lawn itself a specific crime with a punishment that is commensurate with the racist motivation and desire to frighten and intimidate the victim that lies behind it.

Firstly, regardless of the rights or wrongs of PZ's comments he hasn't actually done anything or incited anyone to do anything illegal.<snip>

Louis

Again, if you want to be the test case, I will watch your case with great interest.

Test case for what? Destroying a cookie? Pissing on a book? Line them up! Whoever tries to bring charges for any of that will be done for wasting police time!

Test case for buying a communion wafer or having someone get one from church and sending it to me? Again, a waste of police time.

Test case for beating up/threatening/stealing from catholics because they are catholics? Ahhhhhhhhh now we have something! But then neither PZ, nor I, nor anyone but a bigot, are doing this, advocating this or would ever do this.

I may be going against the grain here, but I liked the article he wrote. When I think of Dembski, I tend to think of the bitter petulance and farty flash animations. It is humanizing to see him as a parent desperate to find some help for his sick child. I don't particularly think there is anything to faith healing, but I have seen the hopelessness of chronic disease and I certainly don't begrudge him trying.

--------------It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

I may be going against the grain here, but I liked the article he wrote. When I think of Dembski, I tend to think of the bitter petulance and farty flash animations. It is humanizing to see him as a parent desperate to find some help for his sick child. I don't particularly think there is anything to faith healing, but I have seen the hopelessness of chronic disease and I certainly don't begrudge him trying.

Nah I'll join you on that one.

Whatever else one thinks of Dembski, or whoever, he's still a guy with a family to look after.

Louis

ETA: I mean I'll join you on the sympathy, not the assessment of the article.

Firstly, regardless of the rights or wrongs of PZ's comments he hasn't actually done anything or incited anyone to do anything illegal.

Secondly, comparing PZ destroying (which he has yet to do btw, he's merely talked about it) a communion wafer to a KKK cross burning or the vandalising of a synagogue with Nazi symbols is hyperbolic drivel of the highest order. Those crimes are demonstrably of a racial, not religious, nature, a fact established in every civilised country on the planet. One of the key arguments in the "offence to religion"/race debates has always been that Jewish religion (for example) can almost exclusively be identified with a specific, and narrow, set of racial groups. The rights or wrongs of this categorisation are immaterial, at least in the UK these matters have fallen under racial discrimination laws, not (despite the best efforts of this misguided government) religious hatred laws.

Thirdly, communion wafers are a commercial product, they can be bought. PZ can perfectly legitimately get his hands on some. Even if someone snuck them out of a mass they have been freely given them by the priest, a reasonable transfer of ownership can be said to have taken place. No disclaimer signed, no contract entered into. To claim that the wafer would have to be stolen in order to acheive this "desecration" is to twist the definition of "stolen" so far that my wife could have me prosecuted for theft of her saliva after a prolonged kiss should she so desire. The sacrament is freely given to people professing that faith. Should that person miraculously change their mind 2 seconds after receiving it.....well how can you prove their lack of sincerity? Even demonstrable premeditation could fall foul of the protections that religious affiliations (and the ability to change them) have under the law.

Fourthly, blasphemy is only blasphemy to a believer, PZ isn't a believer. He can whack off on wafers, burn bibles, get a lady to queef on Qu'rans, tear up Torahs, grind his genitals on Guru Granth Sahibs and shit on sections of every sacred sheet in the world. Hell, I'll even join him. So what? Will this upset some people? Sure. Will it offend some people? Sure. Will it constitute blasphemy in the eyes of some people? Sure. But rather tellingly, such acts only have the significance they are attributed under various belief systems. They are tellingly very seperate from "Get to the back of the bus nigger" or "filthy kike" or "dirty paki" or cross burnings or Holocaust denial or "No Blacks, No Irish" signs, they don't involve discrimination against persons or people on the basis of an unchangeable facet of their birth, i.e. their race.

Threatening to kill someone is a crime. Threatening to kill someone because of their race or religion is a hate crime. Threatening to crumble a cracker in a (probably) comedy fashion, even if it pisses someone off, is not a crime (should said cracker be legally obtained). If it is then I get to play the exact same cards. I get to burn chuches because they "offend" me (they don't but hey, I can claim whatever beliefs I like right?), I get to call for the murder of the Archbishop of Canterbury because his beard "offends" me (it doesn't but hey, when did reality enter into the equation). I get to beat up muslim people on the street because their presence "offends" me (it doesn't, but hey, why let a little thing like the facts get in the way of a good emotive load of shit?).

Guess what? PZ's comments (and maybe actions) WILL offend someone, it's possible that causing offence is quite deliberately intended. Causing offence=/=hate. Not even close. PZ is drawing attention to a demonstrably ludicrous idea and questioning it. He might be doing so in a way that I would not, or that I might tacticly disagree with, but what he is expressedly not doing is anything remotely resembling a hate crime.

To equate the two is to cheapen a) hate crimes and the suffering their victims have been through, and b) to miss the point of what PZ has said.

I suggest people grow up a bit. Given a choice between having my kids beaten up for the colour of their skin or having their most precious holy relic desecrated I know which I'd choose. And I know which is a hate crime and which isn't. I suggest that we stop pandering to the hysterical persecution complexes of people that are afraid to be disagreed with.

I may be going against the grain here, but I liked the article he wrote. When I think of Dembski, I tend to think of the bitter petulance and farty flash animations. It is humanizing to see him as a parent desperate to find some help for his sick child. I don't particularly think there is anything to faith healing, but I have seen the hopelessness of chronic disease and I certainly don't begrudge him trying.

What struck me about Dembski's essay is his apparent surprise. He went to faith healer who claimed to have raised 30 people from the dead - one an unembalmed gentleman who had purportedly been sealed in a coffin for 48 hours, then tapped on the lid to be let out. He got there, found that it was all a sham - all exploitation and cheesy showmanship - and was surprised.

There is something seriously impaired about the reality testing of a clearly very bright individual who is surprised to find that such obviously fraudulent and exploitive claims are bunko. The emotional pain of having a child with a significant handicap doesn't excuse one to take leave of one's rationality. I'm speaking as a father who has raised a child with a significant physical handicap, and know whereof I speak. Strike that: we all suffer in one way or another.

Further, Dembski perpetrates his own bunko as he continues to sell intelligent design to eager consumers who suffer similar impairment of reality testing for similar reasons (a history of embeddedness in the fundamentalist community). However sincere he may have been at the outset of his crusade, he knows by now that ID isn't going anywhere as a scientific discipline, that it is in fact utterly barren as science, and that it will never be more than a philosophical and religious assertion. Yet he continues to promote it as science to vulnerable populations, most recently conceptually unarmed high school students. The hopes for scientific confirmation of fundamentalist faith that he fosters within these hapless students are absolutely destined to be disappointed, and he knows that. Nevertheless, this generates book sales, and income, for him.

So I'm not feeling all that sorry for WAD in this instance. What I'd like to see is Dembski disassociating himself from despicable scum such as Scordova the next time he exploits Darwin's "deformed child" for cheap rhetorical purposes.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

What struck me about Dembski's essay is his apparent surprise. He went to faith healer who has claimed to have raised 30 people from the dead - one an unembalmed gentleman who had purportedly been sealed in a coffin for 48 hours, then tapped on the lid to be let out. He got there, found that it was all a sham - all exploitation and cheesy showmanship - and was surprised.

I would second RB's surprise at the gullibility of Dr. Dr. D. This pair of sentences in his account was particularly striking (my emphasis).

Quote

My son's situation was not unique -- a man with bone cancer and his wife traveled a long distance, were likewise refused prayer, and left in tears. People with needs were shortchanged.

Just. Wow.

People who were expecting a personal miracle were disappointed. Shortchanged (interesting choice of words, that). How surprising. That really says a lot about the disconnect with reality that is apparently needed to be an ID guru...

As a father, I certainly have sympathy for Dembski and his wife. I've never had to deal with a chronically sick child, but I've known folks who deal with it every day, and it is obviously a serious burden. Nonetheless it is difficult, for me at least, to imagine how a highly educated man can apparently disconnect his brain to the extent needed to buy into this level of woo. He has my sympathy for that as well.

--------------Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mindHas been obligated from the beginningTo create an ordered universeAs the only possible proof of its own inheritance. - Pattiann Rogers

Maybe SCordova does because Davison was the last to comment on youngcosmos.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

What struck me about Dembski's essay is his apparent surprise. He went to faith healer who has claimed to have raised 30 people from the dead - one an unembalmed gentleman who had purportedly been sealed in a coffin for 48 hours, then tapped on the lid to be let out. He got there, found that it was all a sham - all exploitation and cheesy showmanship - and was surprised.

I would second RB's surprise at the gullibility of Dr. Dr. D. This pair of sentences in his account was particularly striking (my emphasis).

Quote

My son's situation was not unique -- a man with bone cancer and his wife traveled a long distance, were likewise refused prayer, and left in tears. People with needs were shortchanged.

Just. Wow.

People who were expecting a personal miracle were disappointed. Shortchanged (interesting choice of words, that). How surprising. That really says a lot about the disconnect with reality that is apparently needed to be an ID guru...

As a father, I certainly have sympathy for Dembski and his wife. I've never had to deal with a chronically sick child, but I've known folks who deal with it every day, and it is obviously a serious burden. Nonetheless it is difficult, for me at least, to imagine how a highly educated man can apparently disconnect his brain to the extent needed to buy into this level of woo. He has my sympathy for that as well.

I'm not at all surprised about Dembski's "gullibility"(if it is such). Everything I have read by the man screams that he struggles to believe what he wants to be true, regardless of whether it is or not. He wants what he believes to be true to actually be true very very much indeed.

Unpicking that kind of personal/emotional involvement is nigh on impossible in any rational sense, esp by a third party. Dodgy armchair psychology moment (please feel free to correct/disagree with all this): I've often thought that belief, faith, this kind of wishing for harsh reality to be suspended are not merely coping mechanisms but actual "cures" for things like clinical depression. What I mean is that people have "cured themselves" sort of like a mental immune system for psychopathology. Dembski strikes me as a very wishful thinker when it comes to this sort of thing, partly as some sort of coping mechanism, partly because this is how his mind/brain has learned to stave off illness.

Ahhhh that's probably a load of crap, and it's certainly hard to rationalise with my conviction that he is deliberately gulling the ID rubes for cash with his commercial efforts.

Sorry for the "stream of consciousness" and vagueness of the half formed ideas within. Sympathy for Dembski's plight is warring with an attempt to understand something based on too little info and a profound lack of sympathy for some of his actions. Conflict produces unusual results, and perhaps that is also as much of an explanation for Dembski's behaviour as anything.

Dembski writes: At this point, a friend who was with us urged that she and my wife take our son with autism down for prayer (I stayed with our other son and daughter). Over an hour later my son with autism was still not able to get to the main floor for prayer. Ushers twice prevented that from happening. They noted that he was not in a wheelchair. Wheelchair cases clearly had priority -- presumably they provided better opportunities for the cameras, which filmed everything. They also invoked the fire marshals, who, they claimed, prohibited too many people on the floor of the arena. But earlier in the service, during the worship time, they had packed the floor with people singing and whooping it up.

This seems to be standard procedure for all accomplished faith healers. The photogenic who have at least a chance of standing up from their wheelchairs or dropping their crutches are brought up front and the hopeless cases are kept in the back of the room, out of the bright lights and tv cameras. The Amazing Randi wrote an article about attending a faith healer's session once and mentioned the rows of wheelchairs with hopelessly screwed up people in the darkness at the back of the room.

--------------...after reviewing the arguments, Iâ€™m inclined to believe that the critics of ENCODEâ€™s bold claim were mostly right, and that the proportion of our genome which is functional is probably between 10 and 20%. --Vincent Torley, uncommondescent.com 1/1/2016

This seems to be standard procedure for all accomplished faith healers. The photogenic who have at least a chance of standing up from their wheelchairs or dropping their crutches are brought up front and the hopeless cases are kept in the back of the room, out of the bright lights and tv cameras. The Amazing Randi wrote an article about attending a faith healer's session once and mentioned the rows of wheelchairs with hopelessly screwed up people in the darkness at the back of the room.

Faith healers are nasty pieces of work, guess you have to be when you sell nothing but disappointment, false hope and fraud to the ill. Bet this Todd Bentley character sleeps like a baby though.

Dembski: Neither my wife nor I regret going. It was an education. Our kids are resilient. But the ride home raised a question. We found ourselves avoiding talking about the event until the children fell asleep. Then, as they drifted off in the early morning, we talked in hushed tones about how easily religion can be abused, in this case to exploit our family. What do we tell our children? I'm still working on that one.

Or like how some people want to undermine the entire foundations of science education by pushing "Goddidit" in lieu of the scientific method? Yeah Bill, we're still working on that one too.

--------------"Science is what got us to the humble place weâ€™re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD